Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in extract· [2025] KEELC 3534 (KLR)

Vision-One Constructions International (K) Limited v Simei & another (Environment & Land Case E014 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3534 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
6 May 2025
AKA. Y. Koross
2,151 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to make a land company pay money upfront to cover potential legal costs, because the company is solvent and owns valuable Kenyan property.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (A. Y. Koross, J) determined a notice of motion dated 1/04/2022 by which the 2nd defendant, a firm sued in its professional capacity, sought an order that the plaintiff furnish security for costs, proposing Kshs. 2,000,000/-. The applicant argued the plaintiff's directors were non-residents, enforcement of any costs decree might prove futile, no cause of action was disclosed against it, and the suit was malicious. The plaintiff opposed, stating it was a solvent Kenyan company, that its directors' dual Kenyan and American citizenship was insufficient basis, and that the 2nd defendant was properly joined over allegations it never remitted the full proceeds of sale of the suit property to the 1st defendant. The court grounded its jurisdiction in Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 26 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and drew on Jayesh Hasmukh Shah v Navin Haria, the Supreme Court's decision in Westmont Holdings v Central Bank of Kenya (with its extensive non-exhaustive principles), and Alpha Fine Foods v Horeca Kenya. Holding that the plaintiff is a separate legal entity with offices in Kenya owning land valued at about Kshs. 60,000,000/-, that being sued in a professional capacity is no basis for security, and that the claim against the 2nd defendant was genuine, the court found the threshold unmet. The motion was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 2nd defendant proved grounds warranting an order for security for costs against the plaintiff

Holding

The motion was not merited; the grounds advanced fell far short of the threshold

Reasoning

The court held the plaintiff is a company with offices in Kenya, separate from its non-resident directors, and owns the suit property valued at about Kshs. 60,000,000/-. Being sued in a professional capacity is not a basis for security. The claim against the 2nd defendant was genuine - that it failed to remit purchase price proceeds - not vexatious or an abuse of process.

p. 5
02

Whether costs should follow the event

Holding

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff upon dismissal of the motion

Reasoning

Applying the proviso to Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act that costs follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders, the court found no reason to depart and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An order for security for costs is discretionary and is to be exercised reasonably and judicially having regard to the circumstances of each case
  • The burden lies on the applicant seeking security for costs to satisfy the grounds to the satisfaction of the court
  • Security for costs is granted only in exceptional circumstances and each case is considered on its own merits
  • Article 48 of the Constitution must inform the exercise of the security for costs jurisdiction so that it is not abused

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 1/04/2022 is hereby dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 26 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Vision-One Constructions International (K) Limited v Simei & another (Environment & Land Case E014 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3534 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3534/eng@2025-05-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.